Jagella Posted November 3, 2015 Author Posted November 3, 2015 You repeatedly define atheists as a group, and call for collective action - e.g.: What you're saying here is equivocation. I was accused of trying to start a "club," and now you say I am defining atheists as a "group." Actually, atheists are a group of people who don't believe in gods. Why should personal religious belief or lack thereof have anything to do with not generally being a jerk to other people? It's odd that you cannot see the impact beliefs can have on a person's actions. September 11 should have made that clear to all. If you tell people that their beliefs are their top priority, then people are a lesser priority. It still doesn't explain your strawman equation of doesn't care about religion = doesn't care about morality. Speaking of straw-man arguments! Please direct quote me (copy and paste) rather than make something up. Jagella -2
overtone Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 (edited) Jagella is probably a fundie, trolling the forum. Is that a joke, or are you serious? I am completely serious. You seem to be posting in bad faith, dealing in stereotypes and using them for describing supposed "atheists" as this or that kind of bad person, and the most obvious explanation is that you are getting your stereotypes and repugnant attacks from the usual source (inculcated fundamentalist bigotry) any forum like this is long familiar with. You're posting exactly like a fundie trolling the forum. There are very few explanations for that, other than you being a fundie trolling the forum. For example: Actually, atheists are a group of people who don't believe in gods No actual atheist thinks atheists are a group of people. Edited November 3, 2015 by overtone
Arete Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 (edited) Actually, atheists are a group of people who don't believe in gods. No more than "people who aren't terribly interested in trainspotting" are a definable group. Go re-read post #67, you seem to have lost the context in which the word "club" was used. Atheists are not a collective. Expecting collective ideals and philosophies is not sensible. I don't believe I'm alone in not wanting to be preached at about what "we atheists" should and shouldn't value, care about and behave like. I have my own morality and ethics and they suit me fine. I need someone else's ideologies preached at me about as much as I need someone to tell me how to not watch trains. It's odd that you cannot see the impact beliefs can have on a person's actions. September 11 should have made that clear to all. If you tell people that their beliefs are their top priority, then people are a lesser priority. Feeding into other posters questioning your integrity, this argument is a red herring. The point is that whether you are an atheist or not should have zero bearing on whether or not you should "not to be violent, bigoted, fanatical" . Nobody should. Whether or not you shouldn't fly a plane into a building full of people has nothing to do with whether you're a Muslim or not either. What particular religion you subscribe to or don't is irrelevant. Speaking of straw-man arguments! Please direct quote me (copy and paste) rather than make something up. Sure: I must interpret what you're saying here as your not caring about about people being fair, honest, open-minded, or peaceful. Will you care if you are not treated fairly in court? Are you apathetic that a salesperson is honest with you when you buy a car? Won't you care if you are discriminated against because you are an atheist? And if peaceful behavior means nothing to you, then you won't mind one bit about being a victim of a violent crime--possibly attacked by religious terrorists. Edited November 3, 2015 by Arete
John Cuthber Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 This whole tread is silly. It is the small and weak that get "picked on" and since religions are in the majority and have been granted power by governments, that's not really going to happen. 1
Strange Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 It's odd that you cannot see the impact beliefs can have on a person's actions. So whay are you attacking atheists, who don't have a belief (regarding gods, at least)? If you tell people that their beliefs are their top priority, then people are a lesser priority. As Arete said he didn't care about god or beliefs, by your logic, people must be a higher priority: your should praise him, not attack him.
Phi for All Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 This whole tread is silly. It is the small and weak that get "picked on" and since religions are in the majority and have been granted power by governments, that's not really going to happen. Excellent point. And since you mention governments, I can't help draw a parallel between this image of fragile, sacred, underdog religion being picked on by rabidly rational unbelievers, and the far-right US politicians like Rick Santorum, who whinged on about how the media was picking on him by focusing on his most extreme views. Peel away the crazy, find the good, ignore the crazy, and all will be well, right? Religion isn't being picked on. Isn't that a bit like claiming those who build a house of cards are being picked on by heavy breathers?
MonDie Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 This whole tread is silly. It is the small and weak that get "picked on" and since religions are in the majority and have been granted power by governments, that's not really going to happen. This whole thread isn't worth reading.
Prometheus Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 It is the small and weak that get "picked on" and since religions are in the majority and have been granted power by governments, that's not really going to happen. Reminds me of how some people like Dawkins are referred to as militant atheists, like they are somehow comparable to the militant religious. How religious people can equate harsh words to suicide bombings and mass killings is beyond me, but i suspect the source is the same as the 'why do scientists pick on us with evidence' whine. 2
MonDie Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 Even if some subset of atheism can be a proxy for intolerance, why even bother using a proxy? There are many kinds of prejudices, and many proxies for intolerance and prejudice: right wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), low openness to experience, and, to a degree... religiosity. Why not just say, "people who are intolerant"? It's much more to the point. Is the bigoted unbeliever some special case of bigot that deserves special attention?
TJ McCaustland Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 I disagree. It seems fairly obvious that science is a tool of reason based on observation. It doesn't work with religion, which is all about faith and NOT having evidence to back up your beliefs. The only "cold war" is when religion tries to imply it has the kind of evidence science looks for. It doesn't, never has, never will until god(s) become observable enough to make predictions that science can test. Your argument (unless you're like SillyBilly, and aren't making any), implies this is more a difference of opinion, an argument across a fence, rather than religion trying to gain merit where it isn't warranted. There is no war; when religion tries to make physical assertions about reality using supernatural powers (think Shroud of Turin), science can refute them every time. And when religion falls back on god(s) that are unfathomable, unobservable, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being(s), then science is completely useless for measurements since it relies on the natural rather than the supernatural. But the question is is science truly science, or did we miss something in metaphysics that set us off on a false scent? You see my friend I can make an infinite amount of dubious claims like that that I cannot prove and you cannot disprove, therefore argument for one side is irrelevant, You must be neutral otherwise you cannot see the big picture.
Phi for All Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 But the question is is science truly science, or did we miss something in metaphysics that set us off on a false scent? You see my friend I can make an infinite amount of dubious claims like that that I cannot prove and you cannot disprove, therefore argument for one side is irrelevant, You must be neutral otherwise you cannot see the big picture. No, that's not the question.
TJ McCaustland Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 No, that's not the question. Because it's an answer involving a claim in the form of a question, So it's not truly a question but an answer. -2
moth Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 I've been wondering this myself.It seems to me that it is not religion being picked on, it's the religious.The same fear of different attitudes and ideas that packs the pews also crams the ballot box.Maybe the same blind faith that smothers rational thinking also works the other way,irrational plans, especially ones that punish "the others" for their apostasy cause blind obeisance to the high priests of right wing athoritarianism.
John Cuthber Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 It seems to me that it is not religion being picked on, it's the religious. By whom? Who is in a position of power or other authority and is picking on the religious? What do you mean by "picked on"? Do you consider it to be "picking on them" to ask them to justify their actions?
moth Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 By whom? Who is in a position of power or other authority and is picking on the religious? What do you mean by "picked on"? Do you consider it to be "picking on them" to ask them to justify their actions? By right wing authoritarians. Mock preachers who pretend God told them to run for office to do god's will. Singled out for their gullability Not at all. I think this is why they believe they don't need to justify their actions, they have picked a side and they'll stick with it right or wrong..
John Cuthber Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 The religious are not being particularly ill treated by Right Wingers (the reverse seems more likely to me). It is the atheists who are getting at least some of the grief from the Right. Fox news doesn't exactly celebrate atheism.
moth Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 The religious are not being particularly ill treated by Right Wingers (the reverse seems more likely to me). It is the atheists who are getting at least some of the grief from the Right. Fox news doesn't exactly celebrate atheism. I don't think they are being ill treated as much as I think they are being duped. I think one reason athiests and non-christians are getting grief is the people the authoritarians seek need an enemy, any enemy. It certanly seems possible to me that enough anti-knowledge resonating in the right wing media reinforces the view that the christains ARE being attacked and of course only Don can save them.
Jagella Posted November 3, 2015 Author Posted November 3, 2015 This whole thread isn't worth reading. Then why read it? Jagella
Strange Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 Then why read it? Jagella To find out if it is worth reading. Of course.
Phi for All Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 Then why read it? Because of the way the statement was written, I took it to mean, "This whole thread isn't worth reading, just the bits I wrote". I realize now I was probably wrong. John Cuthber said the whole thread was silly, but that's not the same thing as not-worth-reading. I'm not sure by what criteria MonDie can judge the value of a discussion before it happens, or participate in it but then claim in hindsight that it lacked worth. I am sure he will re-evaluate his sentiment and re-join us for an explanation, adding to the reading worth of the thread immensely.
MonDie Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 Not at all. I think this is why they believe they don't need to justify their actions, they have picked a side and they'll stick with it right or wrong.. The word "traitor" comes to mind.
Strange Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 I assumed he meant "this whole thread so far" (with an implication that he wasn't going to read any more). But maybe he hoped that people would stop contributing after his comment, so it would still be true for the entire thread. Or maybe he is prescient and knows that, no matter how long this thread continues, it will never be worth reading. (We could probably have guessed that from the first post.)
Phi for All Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 I think the worth of a reading a thread is influenced greatly by your own participation in it. If I hadn't posted anything in this thread, but decided to read it to see if it had worth, I'd be too mad for pants right now.
MonDie Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 Because of the way the statement was written, I took it to mean, "This whole thread isn't worth reading, just the bits I wrote". I realize now I was probably wrong. John Cuthber said the whole thread was silly, but that's not the same thing as not-worth-reading. I'm not sure by what criteria MonDie can judge the value of a discussion before it happens, or participate in it but then claim in hindsight that it lacked worth. I am sure he will re-evaluate his sentiment and re-join us for an explanation, adding to the reading worth of the thread immensely. It was just getting so repetitive. Let's stay on topic. I don't harass golfers without golf clubs to demonstrate my lack of dedication to not playing golf.
John Cuthber Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 The thread, as a whole, may be short on value, but some of the points raised were voted up. They must have been seen to have some value to be worth rep points. So far, I have yet to see anything like evidence that religion is actually picked no (exploited, perhaps- but that's different from being bullied). So the thread could have been closed at any point by simply pointing out that the answer to the title question is : No.
Recommended Posts